Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On September 16, 2026, Plaintiff John Ho sued Mirlan, a California limited partnership, in the Central District of California. He asserts a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and he contends the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a). On October 14, 2026, Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani issued an in-chambers order to show cause. It is a preliminary step and does not resolve the merits.
The order starts from the premise that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice. Section 1367(c) lets a court decline jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances. Courts weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage.
The court relied on Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). A private ADA plaintiff may obtain only prospective injunctive relief, but the Unruh Act borrows the ADA's substantive rules and expands remedies. The order explains that this led to suits often targeting small businesses with boilerplate complaints for quick settlements. California responded with a verified, heightened pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims (2012) and with added disclosures and an extra filing fee for high-frequency litigants (2015). The order cites Whitaker v. Mac and Schutza v. Cuddeback, where district courts declined supplemental jurisdiction to avoid an end-run around those rules, and notes that Arroyo held such an approach was not an abuse of discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not decide whether to keep or decline the state claims. It ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims, citing section 1367(c). Its reasoning is that district courts in California have concluded that fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims and related state claims brought by high-frequency litigants. The order makes no finding that Plaintiff or his counsel is a high-frequency litigant, and it does not decide whether the claims here are construction-related accessibility claims.
The response is due within 14 days of the October 14 order. Plaintiff must state the amount of statutory damages sought. Plaintiff and counsel must support the response with declarations under penalty of perjury supplying the facts needed to decide whether they meet the high-frequency litigant definition in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1)-(2). At a minimum, the declarations must give the number of construction-related accessibility claims Plaintiff filed in the 12 months before this case, and the number of such claims in which counsel represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in that period. If Plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately, the court may, without further warning, decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims. That is a warning only. No claim has been dismissed, and the order does not address the ADA injunctive claim.
Key Takeaways
- This is an interim show-cause order, not a ruling or final judgment; the court has not declined jurisdiction and no claim has been dismissed.
- Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, so a plaintiff who pairs an Unruh Act damages claim with an ADA claim cannot assume the federal court will hear both.
- The order puts the statutory damages demand and the recent filing history of both Plaintiff and counsel at the center of the comity analysis.
- Plaintiff and counsel must each file declarations under penalty of perjury covering the 12 months before this case was filed.
- An inadequate or late response could lead the court to decline jurisdiction over the state claims, while the ADA injunctive claim is not addressed.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's Arroyo reasoning at the outset of a new Central District case rather than after a motion. It shows an approach in which the court asks for a factual record on high-frequency litigant status before deciding whether federal adjudication of an Unruh Act claim would undercut California's pleading and fee rules for accessibility suits.
As an unpublished in-chambers minute order, it has no precedential weight and binds no other court; its value lies in showing how one judge frames the inquiry. Still open are Plaintiff's response, including whether he or his counsel meet the high-frequency litigant definition, and the court's later decision on whether to keep the Unruh Act claim. The ADA claim for injunctive relief remains pending.